Trentonian editorial: Minimum sense

Thursday, February 14, 2013

“Tonight, let us declare,” said President Obama in his State of the Union oration, “that in the wealthiest nation on Earth no one who works full time should have to live in poverty.” This he said in proposing that the federal minimum wage be boosted to $9 an hour.

A noble sentiment. But is it one that can be made a reality by declaration. “Declare” is something monarchs or magicians do — and even they not always with success.

President Obama — a mere politician although the highest one in the land and a very adept one — can declare all he wants. But what he declares to happen will happen or not based on factors beyond even the mighty powers of government.

If a livable wage is something that can be declared by governmental fiat, why not declare the minimum wage to be, say, $27 an hour — triple the chintzy $9? That’s much closer to a livable wage. The reality is that a living wage can’t be decreed, not even by a monarch, magician or president. (Or for that matter, not even by a dictator. Name the last — or first — prosperous dictatorship in history.)

Most of those who make up the official poverty stats aren’t working at all. And most of those working for a minimum wage are teenagers and retired folks working part-time. When minimum wages are decreed to be hiked, many of the marginal functions these bottom-wage jobs entail are simply distributed among others on the payroll. And in that process the minimum-wage jobs evaporate. Usually with little attention.

They are, after all, minimum-wage jobs.

Minimum-wage jobs are by definition marginal jobs, optional jobs, jobs easily dispensed with. And when they quietly disappear, or don’t materialize to begin with, African-American teens in struggling places like Trenton are disproportionately affected. They need these jobs probably at least twice as much a white teens in the suburbs do. But the black teen unemployment rate is around 40 percent — twice as high as the white teen unemployment rate.

The number of black teens holding jobs has plummeted 14 percent since Obama took office. Maybe the drop can’t be fairly attributed entirely to him. But for sure, an increase in those jobs can’t be either. There were 500,000 black teens in jobs when Obama launched into his first term. As he launches into his second term, that number has dwindled to 430,000.

Is a hike in the federal minimum wage, or in the New Jersey minimum wage as proposed for a voter referendum, likely to help reverse that trend?

And when bottom-wage, part-time job functions can’t be simply dispensed with or apportioned to others on the payroll, to what extent might immigrants — including undocumented ones — wind up filling those jobs? It’s not a question Democratic pols seem especially eager to ponder as they as they solidify their support among the Latino demographic.

In speechifying for a minimum-wage boost, Obama reverted to his familiar economic theme of envy and resentment. He framed the issue in the context of “the wealthiest nation on Earth,” thereby suggesting that the successful and lucky are hoarding the good fortune and leaving others to do without.

The notion seems to hold little promise of improving the actual lot of those who make up the growing official poverty numbers. But it has served Obama himself well enough, politically. Maybe it will continue to do so. Maybe that’s the whole idea.